What is a God?

[DNB]

You claim to believe the scriptures, but when faced with references that demonstrate your error and inconsistency, you go 'walkabout'.

Making comments like, 'Very different contexts' is a meaningless excuse. If you believe that the context changes the meaning of the words, then explain why there's a change in meaning!

Here's a very simple question.

Do you believe that the shepherd of Psalm 23 is God? Is the word 'shepherd' a reference to YHWH?

Find me the word trinity, or three-in-one in the Bible, or incarnate or god-man, or hypostatic union or God-the-Son?

 

[DNB]

Just look at the confusion here!

The greatest commandment states that only God should be served and worshipped.

You agree that God the Father should be worshipped.

Now you are saying that Jesus Christ should be worshipped, too.

YET, you say that Jesus Christ is not God!!!

Mama mia, like I said, many humans were worshipped: in the proper context and measure.

 

[DNB]

Am I to understand that you are now saying that Jesus did not ‘create the world and everything within’?

If so, then, ‘phew!!!’, I like your posts but thought you had gone off the deep end on that issue!

We will find differences of opinion and claims but I hope we can get to levels of agreements of truth in the end.

It is rare to find truth speakers in forums without them veering off on some strange claims somewhere along the lines - and actually learning and changing their wrongful belief to that of the truth.

Soapy, I'm sorry, after everything thing that I said in my previous post, why do you still have to verify whether or not I believe that Jesus can create anything? How much more emphatic and explicit do I have to be?
In other words, how in the world did you make that conclusion in the first place, can you show me the misleading statement that I made?
I'm just curious at this point, I am convinced that I have been patently clear about my refusal to ascribe any attribute of deity to Jesus.
Thanks!

 

[DNB]

Awfully certain of a lot of things you cant possibly know.

Look around you Audie, God's signature is everywhere, there is nothing that does not have His stamp on it.
Is there any civilization from any era, that did not testify to God's spirit by their religious and worship practices? Can a strictly material world and universe, create such sentiments in humans?

 

[Aupmanyav]

The signs that evidence God's existence.

That is what I asked, and you just repeated your line! I ask again, what signs are you referring to, DNB?
Never aw God's signature or stamp.
Humans thought of six-day creation and sun revolving around the earth. They had all kinds of misconceptions. We are getting out of that now.

 

[DNB]

I don't disagree with your concept here. Work is good for the soul. Rest is good for the body.
As to the duration of creating...see my post 201 to soapy.
Duration is for man not for God. The processes we find in creation may reflect certain duration from our perspective. But no specific duration of the creative act applies to God. Why would God create the appearance of duration in creation without adhering to its meaning in creating? If God adheres to actual duration in time by referencing specific duration that has meaning to man in creating (6 days) then by creating only the appearance of duration in time as we find through scientific analysis which didn't actually have that duration God will have created a falsehood in creation. That creates a contradiction in God and is not possible.
The majority of Christian theologians believe that God is not bound in time and the creative act created, for lack of better terms, the past, present, and future, from our experiencing perspective simultaneously in one creative moment.
I believe the specific creative days in genesis is only a literary device.

Yes, i read your post, and thought that it was extremely insightful and profound. And, I cannot refute your point about time having absolutely no significance or quantifiable effect as far as God's activities are concerned.
As for my response, first of all, this is not my area of full confidence or study, but following are a few principles that have determined my conclusion.
I believe that God may project what 24 hrs will be, seeing that He was going to establish it in the first place - we don't need a reference point as in the necessity of the sun preceding the earth's creation.
God did not create Adam as a fetus - he was brought into the world as a mature human being i.e. having age and development from inception. As were other forms of creation (trees, fish, mountains, vegetation, etc...).
God does act in time as far as man's perspective goes - what God did for Moses, was prior in time to when He discoursed with David or Paul. There is an elapse of time that is not an illusion as far as man's benefit or usage is concerned.
God's precepts and ordinances to the Israelites, and their consequent blessings and curses, demands the notion of time - this is what will occur in the future depending on your actions, Time matters to God.

Thus, God can claim to have acted in any manner, whether it's creation or intervention in man's activities on earth, within the frame of time, for He knows that that is the significance that it bears on man - time affects man. For example, if it took a man 2 hours to walk from Jerusalem to Bethlehem, and within that time God caused it to rain, is it fallacious or deceitful for God to say that He allowed it to rain on earth for 2 hours?

 

[DNB]

That is what I asked, and you just repeated your line! I ask again, what signs are you referring to, DNB?
Never aw God's signature or stamp.
Humans thought of six-day creation and sun revolving around the earth. They had all kinds of misconceptions. We are getting out of that now.

The signs are the structure of the universe: seasons, life cycle, life engendering life, the food chain, something cannot come from nothing, the laws of physics, etc...
The spirit in man: every civilization from the beginning of time have had a deity within their culture, and have spent millions of dollars, time, and sweat & blood in the pursuit of that notion - stardust and protoplasm cannot produce such a sentiment and endeavor in man.
The notion of, and desire for, morality, also testifies to the spiritual dimension in man - animals do not abide, nor are affected, by the notion of justice.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Find me the word trinity, or three-in-one in the Bible, or incarnate or god-man, or hypostatic union or God-the-Son?

You should be aware that the word 'trinity' is a theological term, and is not in scripture. The doctrine is primarily used to explain how God redeems mankind.

There are hundreds of scriptural passages than can be used to demonstrate that God was in Christ, and the Spirit of the Father is the Holy Spirit. This is all that is needed to show that God is above (Father), amongst (Son), and within (Holy Spirit), whilst still being one God.

What tends to confuse the issue is the person of Jesus Christ. He is clearly a man with a soul. There is no doubt that he was born of a virgin, and is without sin. He was righteous under the law, and righteous before God the Father. He was also anointed with the Holy Spirit (in full measure) and is, as such, the Son of God in Spirit.

The conclusion reached by Christians is that Jesus Christ, on earth, was both fully man and fully God. The reason Jesus Christ is viewed as God is because the Spirit that rested upon him on earth was the fulness of the Father's Spirit. Once resurrected, Jesus ascended to heaven spiritually and is granted dominion over all things in heaven and in earth.

All of this can be justified from scripture.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Mama mia, like I said, many humans were worshipped: in the proper context and measure.

This is not correct. You provided one passage from Chronicles, and you failed to read it carefully! It did not say that David the king was worshipped. It said that the LORD, and the king, were worshipped.

Maybe, it's just too subtle for you to see?

 

[Redemptionsong]

You are not answering questions out to you but merely diverting in that same devilish manner.

In such a way it must be assumed that you realise you are in error of your thinking and is just messing about.

But to reply to your wayward presentations and disingenuous questions:

1. Jesus Christ, on earth, was the Son of God, and heir to the throne.
2. I believe Jesus Christ is king now [Daniel 7:13,14]. Don't you?
3. Who is the 'KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS' [Rev. 19:16]?

1. Jesus Christ in heaven is still the Son of God and still heir to the throne of God. At the end of time Jesus will become king ON HIS OWN THRONE - the throne of his ancestor, King David

2. You are right to say the words, ‘I believe’ because Jesus has not superceded God as ultimate king over heaven and earth (Creation). Jesus is the currently the king of kings and lord of lords over the kings and lords of mankind - of which there are many:

• “Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to wage war against the rider [Jesus Christ] on the horse and his army.” (Rev 19:19)
• Rev 19:10 has the Angel telling John to ‘Worship God’ … and that the spirit of prophecy bears testimony to Jesus. It does not bear testimony to God (Ipso facto: Jesus is not God)
• Rev 19:16 - 19: shows Jesus as king of the armies of heaven preparing to fight against the kings of the earth

Yo will be aware that this is all before the great judgements. Therefore Jesus has not yet taken his seat as King and ruler in his own throne - the throne of king David:

• “He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”” (Luke 1:32-33)
• You notice that when Jesus does take the seat on the throne of David, his reign is eternal. His kingship as king of the armies of heaven does end!
• Read Rev 20… it portrays GOD seated on the great white throne. Nowhere is Jesus mentioned except that we know that Jesus heads up the judgement process. But it is GOD who says, ‘Behold I am making things new!’ and from whom the earth and heaven died away from: Jesus isn’t that powerful.
• Jesus is portrayed here as the lamb of God and the bridegroom. God is not a lamb nor a bridegroom.
  • “For the wedding of the Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready.” (Rev 19:7)

3. Already answers above: King of kings and Lord of Lords OF THE ARMIES OF HEAVEN:

• “The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean.” (Rev 19:14)
• “Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.” He [Jesus] treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty.” (Rev 19:15)

Thanks for your questions but really, they are silly and point to sheer devils advocacy and not desire for genuine debate. Nevertheless, your resistance does create an area for research into corners of the scriptures not often (for obvious clear reasons) not gone into much!)

I'm prepared to accept that Jesus Christ has yet to be crowned as king, but even now he is head of the Church, and worthy of worship.

What do you see as the role of the Holy Spirit, if it is not the Spirit of the Father come to dwell in his Church?

 

[Soapy]

I'm prepared to accept that Jesus Christ has yet to be crowned as king, but even now he is head of the Church, and worthy of worship.

What do you see as the role of the Holy Spirit, if it is not the Spirit of the Father come to dwell in his Church?

Thank you for being honest in the first part of your response.

The second part is a bit odd!

I did not and have never doubted that the Holy Spirit is the spirit of the Father - the Spirit of God… perhaps you imagined that idea from another poster!

The role of the Holy Spirit OF GOD (not AS GOD) is as Jesus stated by him in the scriptures:

• “The Holy Spirit also acts as comforter or Paraclete, one who intercedes, or supports or acts as an advocate, particularly in times of trial.” (Wikipedia…)

I agree with the Wikipedia extract given.

The scriptures itself says:

• “And I [Jesus Christ] will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever; the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.
• “But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.” (John 14:26)

And just to dispel the expected trinity lunge:

• “On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.” (John 14:20)
• “Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them.” (John 14:21)

There are two expressed ‘trinity’ statements that Trinitarians do not discuss. The Holy Spirit is in all three - The Father; Jesus Christ; the Apostles. The love of each is triangular towards each other:

• “If you love me you will love the Father because he sent me” (paraphrased)

The Holy Spirit of the Father - the spirit of truth - enhances spiritually, encourages positively, and upholds righteously, those who believe in God and Jesus Christ.

• “You heard me [Jesus] say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.
• I have told you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe.
• I will not say much more to you, for the prince of this world is coming. He has no hold over me, but he comes so that the world may learn that I love the Father and do exactly what my Father has commanded me.” (John 14:28-31)

The prince of the world is obviously ‘The Satan’, and will attempt to deceive the world - but Jesus Christ assures us that if we hold to the spirit of truth (the advocate) and believe that Jesus Christ is carrying out the commands of the Father, then the spirit of truth will aid us and comfort us against all the the prince of the world will throw at us.

Therefore, the Holy Spirit of the Father; the advocate; is a spirit that shields our own spirit from the torment of the spirit of the satanic one.

And note carefully:

• “All this I have told you so that you will not fall away. They will put you out of the synagogue; in fact, the time is coming when anyone who kills you will think they are offering a service to God. They will do such things because they have not known the Father or me. I have told you this, so that when their time comes you will remember that I warned you about them. I did not tell you this from the beginning because I was with you, but now I am going to him who sent me. None of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’ Rather, you are filled with grief because I have said these things. But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. When he comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment: about sin, because people do not believe in me; about righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; and about judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned. “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.” (John 16:1 - 15)

Jesus has been granted the power of God, power of the Father. The Holy Spirit (never mind the pronoun of ‘He’) takes (borrows) from the power of Jesus to give to the apostles. The Holy Spirit is under the command of Jesus Christ.

The latter part of your post: The CHURCH (which means, ‘Congregation of people’) BELONGS TO GOD.

Jesus is just the HEAD of that church… he is the LEAD PERSON of the church of God. It is not Jesus’ Church.

What you are teetering on is what the Roman Catholic Church expresses satanically: That the POPE - the head of the Roman Catholic Church - IS GOD!

You are trying to say that Jesus Christ, as head of HIS FATHER’S church… is GOD! No…!! The pope is not God and Jesus is not God. The church is owned BY GOD and neither is owned by the pope nor Jesus.

 

[Audie]

Not exactly in my estimation. How you define God is most important in gleaning some meaning out of what you are attempting to discuss. For instance depending on how you define the term there may be good reasons for rationalizing that God cannot be duplicitous, contradictory in its nature, or multiplicitous. I do not understand the concept of a triune Godhead so I can neither profess belief in it nor discuss it meaningfully except in the negative.
I am firmly monotheistic. I believe that is the most rational depiction of what God means if it exists.
As for atheists, no offense, they are worse that theists in being hypocritical in their analysis of their beliefs.

True, Gods ontology can never be known. Theistic discussion of Gods qualities may give rise to legitimate epistemological interpretation of Gods ontology though. Either it is a coherent and non contradictory interpretation or it is not but its truth can never be known without revelation from God itself. One can only discuss what God cannot be, not what God ultimately means as a being. For instance one can rationally say that God cannot be self contradictory by definition and one could say that by definition God is the most supreme being possible. The former can be comprehended the latter not so much.

Because God is a specific being. With a specific nature. If you are to define God in the singular which I believe is the most rational way to define what God means then it kind of defeats the purpose of how God is defined if any god of the moment fits the definition.


First of all no matter what humans endeavor to know, prove, or demonstrate the reality is we must rely on a-priori assumptions. That is the nature of our limitations in this existence.
We can't even prove the so called laws of science without relying on a-priori assumptions.
I have no absolute guarantee's that my understanding about God, Christianity, or the universe in general is correct. That is because I am a finite being with consequent limitations.
However, I can rationalize my belief in Christianity and certain defined characteristics God may possess and may not possess to some extent.
I start with what Socrates would consider to be the examined life. The self.
I feel as if there is more to existence than mere physicality. I feel that God exists. That is a sentient being greater than any I can fully comprehend and I feel that this being is somehow in some way interested in who I am as an individual being. I recognize it is just a feeling of what is true not a proof of truth. Never the less it is a starting point for me and it is psychologically satisfying and intellectually stimulating.
Then I rationalize my actual experience in reality with the possibility of what I feel to be true.
I believe that Christianity is the most rationally arguable and compatible to my experience of reality that I have found. I believe it is a rational faith whose scriptures realistically depict the historicity and behavior of the people and places that they describe.

Have a pretty day...

Lets see...you have no evidence whatsoever
that any "god" actipually exists.
But it is wholly rational to concoct / choose a
definition of "god" that suits you, call
it "most supreme" as if there could be
degrees of a superlative, and then declare
it is of such limited capacity that it cannot
do a great range of things I can do.
Weird.

Then go on to a gratuitous insult to the
integrity of all atheists.
Who knows why thatis relevant unless maybe
like that they are so wrong it makes you more righter?

" No offense" indeed. That has all
the charm and sincerity of the full
version, "I am sorry if you are offended but"

While we are on style and word usage,
talk of " ontology", Socrates, etc gives
an artifical flavour of intellectualism,
but its best to be cautious, as the cover
is pulled back when one makes intro to
remedial science 099 level mistakes in
attempting to critique science, or doesnt
show familiarity enough with "intellectual"
vocab to know how to spell it.

Anyway, good finish, admitting that all the
rationalizing mentioned , (See a standard
dictionary for insights on that word) is based
on emotions. Feel good, feel right...

Or not quite all. We find it based too on
faith, (a feeling, so i guess thats emotion too?)
that the bible is realistic and accurately depicts
history.

Could you take time to explain how it is
rational to make up or adopt a definition for
something that shows no sign of existing,
and then believe in it because events that also have
no signs of ever having occurred feel as if they
did happen and thus conform to your assumptions?

 

[Audie]

The signs that evidence God's existence.

Walking across campus with another girl,
we saw an autumn leaf fall at out feet,
a big red maple leaf.

"Oh look", she says, picking it up,
" it's a sign sent by God, to represent the Trinity!"

"Then why does it have five parts?", I asked.

"Oh, you are right", she said, " it represents the
Pentarch!"

 

[Redemptionsong]

You are trying to say that Jesus Christ, as head of HIS FATHER’S church… is GOD

By denying that Jesus Christ is God, you deny that the Spirit of God rested upon Jesus without measure.

In John 12:36, Jesus said, 'While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light.'

Jesus was clearly referring to himself as the light come into the world [John 1:8-10]. Had he been referring to his Father as the light there would have been no need to add 'while'.

Psalm 27:1. 'The LORD is my light, and my salvation'.

If the 'LORD' is light, and the 'Lord' is also light, it makes complete sense to see both as God.

That's why it says in 1 John 1:5, 'God is light, and in him is no darkness at all'.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Thank you for being honest in the first part of your response.

The second part is a bit odd!

I did not and have never doubted that the Holy Spirit is the spirit of the Father - the Spirit of God… perhaps you imagined that idea from another poster!

The role of the Holy Spirit OF GOD (not AS GOD) is as Jesus stated by him in the scriptures:

• “The Holy Spirit also acts as comforter or Paraclete, one who intercedes, or supports or acts as an advocate, particularly in times of trial.” (Wikipedia…)

I agree with the Wikipedia extract given.

The scriptures itself says:

• “And I [Jesus Christ] will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever; the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.
• “But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.” (John 14:26)

And just to dispel the expected trinity lunge:

• “On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.” (John 14:20)
• “Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them.” (John 14:21)

There are two expressed ‘trinity’ statements that Trinitarians do not discuss. The Holy Spirit is in all three - The Father; Jesus Christ; the Apostles. The love of each is triangular towards each other:

• “If you love me you will love the Father because he sent me” (paraphrased)

The Holy Spirit of the Father - the spirit of truth - enhances spiritually, encourages positively, and upholds righteously, those who believe in God and Jesus Christ.

• “You heard me [Jesus] say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.
• I have told you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe.
• I will not say much more to you, for the prince of this world is coming. He has no hold over me, but he comes so that the world may learn that I love the Father and do exactly what my Father has commanded me.” (John 14:28-31)

The prince of the world is obviously ‘The Satan’, and will attempt to deceive the world - but Jesus Christ assures us that if we hold to the spirit of truth (the advocate) and believe that Jesus Christ is carrying out the commands of the Father, then the spirit of truth will aid us and comfort us against all the the prince of the world will throw at us.

Therefore, the Holy Spirit of the Father; the advocate; is a spirit that shields our own spirit from the torment of the spirit of the satanic one.

And note carefully:

• “All this I have told you so that you will not fall away. They will put you out of the synagogue; in fact, the time is coming when anyone who kills you will think they are offering a service to God. They will do such things because they have not known the Father or me. I have told you this, so that when their time comes you will remember that I warned you about them. I did not tell you this from the beginning because I was with you, but now I am going to him who sent me. None of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’ Rather, you are filled with grief because I have said these things. But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. When he comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment: about sin, because people do not believe in me; about righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; and about judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned. “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.” (John 16:1 - 15)

Jesus has been granted the power of God, power of the Father. The Holy Spirit (never mind the pronoun of ‘He’) takes (borrows) from the power of Jesus to give to the apostles. The Holy Spirit is under the command of Jesus Christ.

The latter part of your post: The CHURCH (which means, ‘Congregation of people’) BELONGS TO GOD.

Jesus is just the HEAD of that church… he is the LEAD PERSON of the church of God. It is not Jesus’ Church.

What you are teetering on is what the Roman Catholic Church expresses satanically: That the POPE - the head of the Roman Catholic Church - IS GOD!

You are trying to say that Jesus Christ, as head of HIS FATHER’S church… is GOD! No…!! T7he pope is not God and Jesus is not God. The church is owned BY GOD and neither is owned by the pope nor Jesus.

We can add to our understanding of how God works in the world by reading 1 John 1:7. Here it says, 'But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin'.

To have fellowship with one another it is necessary to share the same Spirit. This one Spirit is the Holy Spirit given by grace through faith in Christ.

 

[Soapy]

….

Colossians 1:15–20
15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.19For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

I believe your presentation of these verses paves the way to a trinitarian rendering and false belief concerning the creation in that it is specifically obscure in its meaning. Your claim that the Son (Jesus specifically) was always ‘born ahead of the creation’ by being in the thought of God thus making him pre-existent, is convoluted and very wrong!

Have you, or do you know, or heard of, anyone who had designed an autonomous system? Do they not build in contingencies in case of something going wrong?

Is God any different? God may be perfect, but he build a system that was cyclic… all the non-human aspects. Then he put into it a free-Willed Head: Man.

The man and his offspring were meant to nurture, husband, tend lovingly, develop monumentally and creatively, this world he was out in… What could go wrong??

You ARE right that a saviour was in the mind of God: a contingency saviour… but he was not existing. He would only come into existence IF the man sinned AND none of his offspring were sufficiently righteous to act as a saviour. You know your scriptures enough, I’m sure, to understand that God sought a saviour from among mankind for generations, even selecting David as his own Son in flesh: ‘I have found my David’ and

• “He will call out to me, ‘You are my Father, my God, the Rock my Savior.’ And I will appoint him to be my firstborn, the most exalted of the kings of the earth.” (Psalm 89:26-27)

But then even David sinned… So, in the fullness of time after no offspring of Adam was found, God created a NEW ADAM… born not of the flesh of man (I’m whom there was sin) but like the first man, Adam, born of the Holy Spirit, sinless, righteous and Holy. Jesus, his name, remained sinless and was adopted by God in the words: ‘You are my Son; This day I have become your Father’ … ‘This day I have begotten you’

If you read the scriptures properly you will see that ADAM was the FIRST BORN of humanity. I do not think God is fussed over the animals he created nor the plants nor fish nor insects of microbes. What I did was to show you that THE FIRST BORN sins and another is brought up to replace him….

This next Born (need not be chronologically next… see the patriarchs) become THE MOST BELOVED BY THE FATHER. This is the meaning of the too similar word, FIRSTBORN!

The scriptures tends to tease us with too-similar words to test our understanding - or is it from The Satan to DESTROY our understanding. Why:

• ‘Lord’ and ‘LORD’
• ‘Worship’ and ‘Obeisance’
• ‘Dead’ and ‘Sleep’
• ‘Heaven’ and ‘Heavens’
• ‘Hell / Hades’ and ‘The Grave’

Colossians, again, uses the term ‘Before all things’… yet another confusion.

No! It does not mean CHRONOLOGICALLY PRIOR… it means ‘AHEAD OF’ / ‘GREATER THAN’: Christ is ‘Ahead of all things’.

We see this confusion wherein Jesus is asked if he is GREATER THAN Abraham. Jesus answers, ‘Before Abraham, I am’.

You see the confusion? Trinitarians interpret it to mean that weirdly Jesus is calling himself ALMIGHTY GOD!!!! But No! Jesus is saying that:

• ‘Yes, I am GREATER THAN (Ahead of in power and authority) Abraham’

and THAT is why the Jews took up stones to try to stone him. Jesus argued that EVEN ABRAHAM foresaw that one of his descendants would become the messiah… that one GREATER THAN HE (for God surely loved Abraham and gifted him the lineage to the saviour because of his faith) would arise from his loins down the ages.

See that self reference, ‘I am’.. yet another devilish confusion - or righteous obscuring… ‘I Am’ is not a ‘NAME’. It is though, a meaning OF God’s name: YHWH. So it is ridiculous to say that Jesus saying ‘I am’ means Jesus is God… Wow! How many times a day do people say, ‘I am’ in sentences… are we to believe that we are all God? And in the very next chapter Jesus opens the eyes of a man who goes on to answer ‘I Am’ when asked if he is the man that was blind… I notice no trinitarian races to call the man Almighty God! How wickedly strange of them then!!!!

No, DNB, nothing in Corinthians points to a pre-existent Jesus creating or being first created over creation. The verse is saying that the world was created FOR HIM but it does not mean absolute Jesus Christ. IT WAS CREATED for the one who would be the human SON of God… which turned out to be Jesus Christ.

Remember that ADAM was originally SON OF GOD (Luke 3:38) (Created in the image of God) before he sinned. Had Adam not sinned (and God was sorely grieved that he did!!!!) then he, Adam, would be absolutely BOTH the FIRST BORN OF MANKIND and the FIRSTBORN OF THE FATHER OVER CREATION.

 

[Soapy]

We can add to our understanding of how God works in the world by reading 1 John 1:7. Here it says, 'But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin'.

To have fellowship with one another it is necessary to share the same Spirit. This one Spirit is the Holy Spirit given by grace through faith in Christ.

Yes, that is true.

 

[Soapy]

By denying that Jesus Christ is God, you deny that the Spirit of God rested upon Jesus without measure.

In John 12:36, Jesus said, 'While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light.'

Jesus was clearly referring to himself as the light come into the world [John 1:8-10]. Had he been referring to his Father as the light there would have been no need to add 'while'.

Psalm 27:1. 'The LORD is my light, and my salvation'.

If the 'LORD' is light, and the 'Lord' is also light, it makes complete sense to see both as God.

That's why it says in 1 John 1:5, 'God is light, and in him is no darkness at all'.

Delusion is so easy for you!

• “7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.”

How do you say Jesus, Son of God in Spirit, IS GOD.

The verse says it’s the blood of HIS SON that cleanses us.

The blood of the SON of God.

The Son of God is not God.

In the same way a Son of the King is not the King!!

The Son of the Father is not the Father.

The Son of the mother is not the mother!

What language are you speaking?

 

[setarcos]

Lets see...you have no evidence whatsoever
that any "god" actipually exists.

That is not true. There is evidence of intelligent design in the universe. Of course it is probabilistic evidence but so is most evidence used in science.
The God hypothesis is based on accumulated evidence not mere blind speculation.
The fine tuning of the universe.
The Big Bangs initial expansion from a uniform state of equilibrium.
The Quantum mechanical wave functions.
Information theory applied to molecular biology in structures such as DNA.
The inability of evolutionary theory to account or even propose a tenable theory as to how life began, how consciousness arose from inorganic matter.
The conspicuous lack of intermediate species fossil evidence. We should be swimming in these fossils. We are not.
Proofs of Gods existence? No. Evidences of an intelligent designer’s possible existence? Yes.

But it is wholly rational to concoct / choose a
definition of "god" that suits you, call it "most supreme" as if there could be degrees of a superlative, and then declare it is of such limited capacity that it cannot do a great range of things I can do.

I did not concoct or choose the definition of God that is being used. And it doesn't suit me at all since I cannot fathom its meaning in totality. I have nothing to compare it to.
The qualities of what it means to be God can however be discussed and rationalized to a certain degree.
I do not know what great range of things you think you can do that God cannot? Can you give me an example?

Then go on to a gratuitous insult to the
integrity of all atheists.

I cannot help it that my observation was insulting. The best I could do was declare I meant no offense. To be an atheist is to declare that the case of Gods existence or nonexistence has been definitively proven. Yet atheists can offer no proof for their particular declaration even though they demand proof from theists for theirs. Theists at least can offer evidential support, as I've given above, for the possibility to remain tenable and to the degree of something being hypothesized but as yet not proven they have the greater probability of proving their case than atheists have in declaring they've proven their case already.

an artifical flavour of intellectualism,

I don't know what you’re getting at here? Are you saying I'm being artificial but trying to pass it off as understanding? Why are you being so confrontational? Why do you find what I say so offensive? It’s just a discussion. I'm not saying I'm positively right and everyone else is positively wrong. There are usually degrees.

as the cover is pulled back when one makes intro to remedial science 099 level mistakes in attempting to critique science, or doesnt
show familiarity enough with "intellectual" vocab to know how to spell it.

Wow. You’re really on a role. It’s usually remedial science 101 but I guess 099 level was your way of salting the wound. What was I critiquing about science you found incorrect?
Spelling I admit is not my strongest suit. But I wouldn't throw those rocks while you’re standing in a glass house yourself. You’re consistently making spelling and grammar errors. I don't dwell on such things because I can get what you meant and that's what's important to me.

good finish, admitting that all the
rationalizing mentioned , (See a standard dictionary for insights on that word) is based
on emotions.

It’s not based on my emotions. My rationalization began with my emotions. As in I was moved to act. The act is attempting to rationalize what I felt with what I experience in reality.
Humans don't rationalize and then feel. Humans feel and then attempt to rationalize that feeling. That doesn't mean equating rationalization with emotion. Though the one too often effects the other in many I must admit.
If you would take the time to think about what I'm saying before rushing to judge me as a person this would be a much more productive conversation.

that the bible is realistic and accurately depicts
history.

I believe the historicity of the bible is being proven time and again with archeological findings in the Middle East. The places existed. The people existed. The supernatural events? That's of course faith based.

Could you take time to explain how it is
rational to make up or adopt a definition for something

It’s the same way we rationalize all definitions. We propose or demonstrate the existence or nonexistence of something and then define it according to the qualities we agree to assign it. In this way we can meaningfully have a rational discussion of the defined thing.
FYI...God and or gods have been deliberated, defined, and discussed for generations. I didn't make up a definition of God. It’s not my made up definition. I am discussing the definition of God as the pinnacle of perfection. A definition that has been discussed and deliberated since the early Greeks first wondered what being a God might mean.

something that shows no sign of existing,

See my earlier...
A counter example of a rational discussion of something that at first showed no signs of existing in reality is Black Holes.

Thanks for the conversation...it’s a pleasure speaking with you.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Delusion is so easy for you!

• “7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.”

How do you say Jesus, Son of God in Spirit, IS GOD.

The verse says it’s the blood of HIS SON that cleanses us.

The blood of the SON of God.

The Son of God is not God.

In the same way a Son of the King is not the King!!

The Son of the Father is not the Father.

The Son of the mother is not the mother!

What language are you speaking?

It's the language of the Spirit.

We both know that God the Father is Spirit.

The Spirit of the Father, in full measure, was in his human vessel, Jesus. This makes Jesus Christ 'the Son'.

The Spirit of the Father was poured out on the Church at Pentecost. The Spirit 'dividing to every man severally as he will'. This means that individual members of the Church did not receive the full measure of the Holy Spirit, but together they are members of one Spirit.

This is God condescending to come to earth, first in Christ, and then in Christ's body, the Church.